Tzeentch win Cancon and the GW GT Heat 1

[Phasteon]

Well, I guess I better see it that way: 

If he gets more models I get to slay more models with my angry duardin 😄👍🏻

[novembermike]

21 minutes ago, michu said:

Ok, I can't agree with that interpretation. I think if that was their intent, they would write about it  like about DD rolls for BS and saves counting as modified.

The FAQ just answers questions, if nobody sends in a question they don't answer it.

[michu]

No, I mean  they would write about it in the Core Rules.

[novembermike]

9 minutes ago, michu said:

No, I mean  they would write about it in the Core Rules.

Not if they felt the rules were clear. Slain models are on the table and then removed. Horrors split when they are slain and then removed (works with the wording from slain). Models that flee are removed and then "count them as having been slain" (note the past tense). The hooks just aren't there for Horrors to split on battleshock.

[NJohansson]

1 hour ago, michu said:

No, he means that if two players have different interpretations of particular rule and there is no clear FAQ answer and no AoS equivalent of MTG judge nearby, then the only way to proceed with the game is to discuss the rule and make a ruling for that particular game. Using the closest thing available is just a one way to do it. Just both sides have to agree on that.

 

But here in lies the problem - if both sides agree it’s fine - heck half the time we play with Warmachine LoS rules because they actually make sense - but on that I agree with my gaming group, it’s when you don’t agree that you need rules/how to read them. Then It becomes more practical to use RAW and try to use rules as close as possible - making up your own rules when in disagreement rarely works.

[HarbingerGaming]

I guess to toss in my two cents because I can: I'm struggling to understand how people are mistaking the DD ruling. They only added the caveat of "if you use this for Battleshock or Saves, modifiers still apply". The DD itself is still the unmodified roll. That hasn't changed. Applying the logic of what people are saying now (that the die roll is now modifiable), then every player in the old edition using daemon banners was cheating because the rule was always "if you rolled a 1"...which if you took battleshock you would never have done because "oh it gets modified so it is a X" instead. 

[Sleboda]

7 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I'm frustrated that we allow competitive players to get hit with "WAAC TFG" comments and "you're bad sports" comments for having opposing viewpoints ...

Well said. I'm not the most hyper competitive (or, for that matter, skilled) player, but I've always been bothered by seeing people who do their best within the rules to win get the WAAC label.

 

[gjnoronh]

I know the history Joe from the old Warhammer.org forum and agree generally with you.   I think you called it 'Funners' vs something else in the past? 

However, I think there is also something to be said in a never perfectly balanced rules set for  extra respect for the person taking the smaller gun and winning vs the biggest gun and winning.    Or taking  a list that ticks the visual and thematic boxes but may not be competitive at all particularly  in a game system where the lore and story telling  and visual aspects are such an important part of making a pleasurable and immersive experience.   

It's also the case that some complaints may be founded in some cases.   There is some kind of behavior that is "WAAC and TFG" including providing a belligerent, rules lawyering, or cheating type experience.       That's not because of someone's choice of a tougher list vs a softer list.  That's more due generic behavioral stuff about abusing the competitive system as far as it will go.      It's very rare in the AoS scene thankfully.    That behavior 'costs' the opponents, tournament organizers, and the AOS scene quite a bit as it turns of people from playing the system in general or going to events.  Fear of being exposed to that behavior is the most common reason I hear for folks not coming to events.    

What are the 'costs' potentially from an opponents perspective ignoring behavioral issues?  Would a quickly commissioned poorly painted hard as nails list be a cost from an opponents perspective. I think possibly.    Same list lovingly painted  and converted with a visually immersive theme - that might feel like not a 'cost'  I think.

I guess the "WAAC" label  really begs the question  what are 'the costs' who is paying them?    

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by gjnoronh

[Dead Scribe]

I see the "WAAC" label used regularly to describe people who play in a way someone doesn't like.  Usually from someone that doesn't like competitive play or someone that claims to like competitive play but doesn't want to have to keep making sure their armies are as powerful as needed, so trying to shame others into playing down to their army level.

It needs to stop.

[Phasteon]

9 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I see the "WAAC" label used regularly to describe people who play in a way someone doesn't like.  Usually from someone that doesn't like competitive play or someone that claims to like competitive play but doesn't want to have to keep making sure their armies are as powerful as needed, so trying to shame others into playing down to their army level.

It needs to stop.

Well I agree and I feel sorry If my choice of words made people (including you) feel that I generalized being competitive with being a WAAC player. 

That was absolutely not my intention as I get labeled like this in my daily life as well, just for taking advantage of rules that are clearly written in a way the other player just didnt know about. 

My point was not that „pointing out rules“ or „going strictly RAW“ is a „bad sport“ kind of attitude. 

My point was that if a wording IS unclear (which is imo not often the case), THEN its advisable imo to be careful how to handle it in CASUAL games to NOT get labeled by more casual players. 

In competitive play there are TO and judges to decide in such cases. 

 

Edit: Oh and btw. 

Every WAAC player is a player that plays in a way I dont like, but not every player that plays in a way I dont like is a WAAC player - those are 2 different things that often get mixed up in the heat of a discussion, where often words are not chosen perfectly. 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Phasteon

[RuneBrush]

Let's not go too far down the WAAC discussion as it means different things for different people and isn't appropriate to this topic (it also causes a lot of hostile feelings when people disagree with their interpretation).

Ultimately what most gamers try to avoid is winning or being beaten by a "gotcha" - so the actual game result being decided because one player has a rule that they've obfuscated or hidden from the other.  I think this is largely proven here because a large part of this topic has been talking about clarity of rules.

I think following the FAQ there are two main points that need clarifying (this could be officially by GW, or agreed with your opponent before the game starts).  These being:
- does swapping out a Destiny Dice count as a modification to the dice roll
- does "count as slain" within the battleshock phase trigger other rules (specifically the Split and Split Again rule on horrors)

[JPjr]

20 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

- does "count as slain" within the battleshock phase trigger other rules (specifically the Split and Split Again rule on horrors)

The question I have here for people is if you think Horrors ‘slain’ via battleshock should split, would you be happy taking x amount of mortal wounds in the same situation from, say, a Nurgle unit that can deal out mortal wounds when models are ‘slain’, or any of the other units that have similar shenanigans.

Theres been rules like that around for a while, so what’s been the standard till now?

[RuneBrush]

51 minutes ago, JPjr said:

The question I have here for people is if you think Horrors ‘slain’ via battleshock should split, would you be happy taking x amount of mortal wounds in the same situation from, say, a Nurgle unit that can deal out mortal wounds when models are ‘slain’, or any of the other units that have similar shenanigans.

Theres been rules like that around for a while, so what’s been the standard till now?

Would agree with you on this and pretty sure it's how most people envisage it working. (myself included)  In my eyes, abilities, battleshock etc trigger off models that are actively slain - basically damage or killed by something tangible like a spell, ability etc.  I think the reason we've not had this question arise previously is because a lot of triggered abilities occur in a specific phase or at the start of the battleshock phase.

[Azamar]

40 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Would agree with you on this and pretty sure it's how most people envisage it working. (myself included)  In my eyes, abilities, battleshock etc trigger off models that are actively slain - basically damage or killed by something tangible like a spell, ability etc.  I think the reason we've not had this question arise previously is because a lot of triggered abilities occur in a specific phase or at the start of the battleshock phase.

I don’t really have a horse in this race, (don’t play Tzeentch, or face them that often as a casual player) but reading through the last few pages out of interest, I would say I agree they don’t split from battleshock losses. Closest I can find on the current faqs is the clarification that a unit is destroyed “when the last model is slain or flees”, implying that they’re two different mechanisms. Very far from a concrete answer, but the closest we’ll have for now. 

 

For the pink horror banners I think I’d play it this way: abilities that activate on an unmodified roll mean they activate if the right number is showing on the dice. So if a destiny dice showing a 1 is used, then no models will flee and d6 horrors come back. That 1 would still technically have casualties added to it as a modifier, but there’s no point in doing so as, regardless of what the total is, the ability states that no models will flee if the dice was a 1.

 

That’s how I’d play it anyway

[Kadeton]

One weird thing I noted: If you decide to split a Horror, but don't have room to place the models, then they are removed from play but very explicitly do not count as being slain.

This got me wondering, in the context of the current discussion, what the implication would be for a unit to have models removed without being slain. I mean, there must be some reason why the Battleshock rules and the Split Unit rules so clearly state that the models that are removed count as slain, right? So what happens when they aren't?

For instance, the Core Rules Designer's Commentary clearly defines that "A unit is considered to be destroyed when the last model from the unit is slain or flees." A unit that had some of its models removed from play (but definitely not slain) could potentially be removed entirely from the board without being "destroyed" for the purposes of mission objectives, special rules etc.

Thoughts?

[Sleboda]

15 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I see the "WAAC" label used regularly to describe people who play in a way someone doesn't like.  Usually from someone that doesn't like competitive play or someone that claims to like competitive play but doesn't want to have to keep making sure their armies are as powerful as needed, so trying to shame others into playing down to their army level.

It needs to stop.

Yeah. These are a subset of the "funners" Gary mentioned I used to talk about in my writing.

You have this group that says "Hey man, I'm playing for fun, why aren't you" or something similar that implies that doing your best is anti-fun. Far too often it ends up just exactly where you suggest it does - telling their opponents to intentionally underperform rather than trying to improve themselves.

Indeed, it does need to stop.

 

On the topic of the horrors, I too believe that battleshock won't trigger splitting. It's a touch grey, though, so I can understand the debate. I don't think this is one of those cases of a WAAC player forcing something where there is no support (in other words, cheating), though it does lean a bit more toward relying on a narrative/funner interpretation.

I suppose that's the issue, right? We shouldn't need an interpretation for any rule. Speed limit is 55? Well, you can't interpret that to mean going 60 is legal. I know it's a Holy Grail, but all rules should be that clear.

Edited February 8, 2020 by Sleboda

[Debello90]

" with the EXEPTION of save rolls and battelshock tests "

what is there to understand?

it is clearly written EXCEPTION therefore it does not activate the ability

[novembermike]

15 hours ago, Kadeton said:

One weird thing I noted: If you decide to split a Horror, but don't have room to place the models, then they are removed from play but very explicitly do not count as being slain.

This got me wondering, in the context of the current discussion, what the implication would be for a unit to have models removed without being slain. I mean, there must be some reason why the Battleshock rules and the Split Unit rules so clearly state that the models that are removed count as slain, right? So what happens when they aren't?

For instance, the Core Rules Designer's Commentary clearly defines that "A unit is considered to be destroyed when the last model from the unit is slain or flees." A unit that had some of its models removed from play (but definitely not slain) could potentially be removed entirely from the board without being "destroyed" for the purposes of mission objectives, special rules etc.

Thoughts?

Look at 40k. The more rules there are mostly similar except they don't have the "counts has having been slain" wording at the end. That means that necrons have to keep track of how many models were killed vs ran away and a few other book keeping issues but it doesn't really add much to the game.

[Forrix]

On 2/8/2020 at 4:59 AM, JPjr said:

The question I have here for people is if you think Horrors ‘slain’ via battleshock should split, would you be happy taking x amount of mortal wounds in the same situation from, say, a Nurgle unit that can deal out mortal wounds when models are ‘slain’, or any of the other units that have similar shenanigans.

Theres been rules like that around for a while, so what’s been the standard till now?

My group has always played that counts as slain = slain for abilities and models destroyed by battleshock trigger slain abilities. It worth mentioning due to the Blood warrior question awhile back that most abilities that trigger on slain specify a phase (typically combat) or that they be slain by an attack (typically melee).

[Forrix]

9 hours ago, Debello90 said:

" with the EXEPTION of save rolls and battelshock tests "

what is there to understand?

it is clearly written EXCEPTION therefore it does not activate the ability

Pretty much this. I doubt its RAI but RAW is very straightforward to me and the counter argument is convoluted enough that I would feel foolish trying to argue it with an opponent. Especially when Tzeentch is already a very strong army. I suppose it could be worthwhile to ask a TO for a ruling before a tournament but I'm planning on play it as not working until they FAQ the FAQ.

[The World Tree]

3 hours ago, Forrix said:

My group has always played that counts as slain = slain for abilities and models destroyed by battleshock trigger slain abilities. It worth mentioning due to the Blood warrior question awhile back that most abilities that trigger on slain specify a phase (typically combat) or that they be slain by an attack (typically melee).

Does anyone seriously think counts as slain is distinct from slain? 

[michu]

12 hours ago, Debello90 said:

" with the EXEPTION of save rolls and battelshock tests "

what is there to understand?

it is clearly written EXCEPTION therefore it does not activate the ability

Because some people argue that even when GW said that those DD does not count as "unmodified" they didn't said they count as "modified". Like there is some third state for them, I don't know... "non-unmodified"?

[novembermike]

5 hours ago, The World Tree said:

Does anyone seriously think counts as slain is distinct from slain? 

I mean, it's different in the sense that fleeing has different rules and wording than stuff that's slain on the battlefield. Stuff that flees counts as having been slain in the past tense. You never have a point where you can say that the horror is slain on the battlefield and will fit the conditions for splitting.

[Kadeton]

6 hours ago, michu said:

Because some people argue that even when GW said that those DD does not count as "unmodified" they didn't said they count as "modified". Like there is some third state for them, I don't know... "non-unmodified"?

That one's pretty straightforward, I think. GW never stated that those dice didn't count as "unmodified", they said that those dice were an exception to "counts as unmodified and can't be modified further". They then went on to say how those dice could be modified further, but didn't clarify whether or not they also counted as "modified". They're already an exception to the rule in that they are subject to modifiers as normal.

The confusion comes from the way that every other dice roll works - the number shown on the die is the "unmodified" result, and the result after modifiers are applied is the "modified" result. There's no precedent anywhere in the game for a roll that has a modified result only - every roll has both an unmodified and a modified result, even if they're the same number.

So it makes a certain degree of sense to look at the sloppy wording of this FAQ and think "Well, they probably didn't mean to create a bizarre modified-only roll state that has never existed in the game before... I guess they just meant that there was an exception to the bit about not being modified, since they then explained exactly how those rolls could be modified. And anyway, you can't apply modifiers to a modified roll - that's inherently the result after modifiers have already been applied - so the number on the die must still be the unmodified roll, just like every other roll in the game."

I'm really interested to see how they clarify this FAQ.

[Acid_Nine]

Leave it to tzeentch to create all this insane rules lawyering. I can just hear him laughing ‘just as planned’ in the background.